(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance.

To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of different situations families might find themselves in.

In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze plan in 2016.

Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016.

For those wondering how clear the IRS's clarifications of this new "penalty" rule are, here is one of the actual examples the IRS gives:

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”

That's because the facts are still coming out. Nevermind they seem to be ever-changing.

Just like they have with every major government program ever implemented. What's your point?

You do realize you have a visceral hatred for anything Obama that completely blocks the rational part of your brain from even considering stuff like the fact that Obamacare was a republican idea first, implemented with success by Mitt Romney, or that every other developed nation has UHC, or that many people currently in the "donut hole" I described will be greatly helped by this, right?

Just like they have with every major government program ever implemented. What's your point?

You do realize you have a visceral hatred for anything Obama that completely blocks the rational part of your brain from even considering stuff like the fact that Obamacare was a republican idea first, implemented with success by Mitt Romney, or that every other developed nation has UHC, or that many people currently in the "donut hole" I described will be greatly helped by this, right?

To them...if you hate Obamacare, it's because you hate Obama or you'rea racist or both.

Giving out facts and numbers and making any kind of sense at all has no place in the Obamacare argument w/ liberals. Why? Because they think money grows on trees...They don't think our economy is in the shitter, in fact they think it's booming. Most have zero sense of money nor do they care when someone tries to explain it to them.

They don't understand that "nothing is free - someone has to foot the bill somewhere". This entire govt and monetary system needs a massive and complete overhaul. Liberals don't care about anything really as long as they get their piece of the Obamapie.

Republicans aren't much better. They're all for more spending, more govt, more wars, more bailouts, they just have a different rhetoric.

It would be nice if we could have something like a "just the facts" Obamacare thread with no partisan bickering and pissing contests. Impossible I know.

The problem with the "just the facts" on Obamacare is that a lot of the facts are not known yet or are having to be revised because they are not viable, make no sense, or the CBO mis-scored it based on false data and assumptions. The facts that are known are simply not viable and more represent welfare than insurance. Additionally, people don't know what insurance actually is and what it is not. They have just been told that the insurance companies are evil and this is how the government will help you get back at them.

Some issues that you may want to ponder:

Insurance was never meant to pay first dollar benefits on health maintenance. The reason why other kinds of insurance remains relatively cheep, for example, is that your home owners policy doesn't come out and paint your house when its needed. The states and now the fed (PPACA) have turned health insurance into welfare.

Pre-existing illness is a straw-man argument because there have been regulations in place that prevents an insurance company from denying anyone coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Its call "guaranteed issue". Look it up. The only reason an insurance company can take action on a pre-existing illness is if the insured didn't have major medical coverage within 'x' number of months before getting the new coverage. And even if they didn't have coverage, the pre-existing rules only apply to the actual condition and only apply for a specified length of time. One other thing, if it is proven that the person lied on their application for insurance about a condition, the normal course of action is to re-evaluate the insured or groups premium rates to correctly account for the inaccurate information.

Group vs one-life major med coverage. With the exception of a couple states, group and one-life health insurance is considered the same thing and they both follow the same legally mandated rules. The term "Like" coverage is used to indicate that the insured had coverage of the same type before the new coverage was in-force. One exception is alternative healthcare plans, such as a temporary medical plan is not considered a "Like" coverage. Temp health plans are a stop gap product that has limited coverage for a limited length of time. It is not a replacement for major medical coverage but rather a plan that can be purchased when someone is between jobs or other life events. Punishment for selling a temp medical plan as a replacement for major medical can cause an agent to have his license revoked. Most insurance companies track agents and insureds to make sure the consumer doesn't screw himself by misusing temp medical plans.

MLR - minimum loss ratio. Its also called the 80/85 rule (based on group size). This is the dagger that is intended to simply collapse the insurance industry. The rule is that if an insurance company does not pay 80%/85% of the premium collected for direct claims expense, then the remainder of the premium must be returned to the insured or group. In other words, if the insurance company pays 75% of premium collected in a plan year, 5% of premium must be returned to the consumer. The insurance company gets to keep 15-20% of premium for agent commissions, marketing, and administration expenses. That sounds fair and that is what the promoters of ACA ran with. Typically, they forgot the most important thing - reality. This works great until you have an insured that has claims that total, for example, 3000% of the premium collected. By law, the insurance company must "reserve" funds for future claims and claims spikes. By definition, these funds are not included in the 80/85% and must be funded within the 20/25% of the premium. There simply isn't enough premium to properly fund an insurance plan and the 80/85% rule makes sure of that. The only way to fund a plan is to raise rates. Government backed plans can lose money every year and never go out of business. In other words - welfare.

Reporting and payment requirements and MediCare: Medicare has no particular reporting or payment requirements in terms of settling a claim within a time period. MediCare routinely takes 12-18 months to settle a claim. Insurance companies have 30 to 45 days if the claim was submitted without any deficiencies (meaning all the information the insurance company needs or has questions about).

Doctor reimbursement: Medicare pays anywhere from 25-75% of what a private insurance company ends up paying for a specific service. The physicians and hospitals offset the loss from MediCare patients my increasing the fees privately insureds must pay. There is a little negotiating room for the private insurance company to attempt to reduce the claims cost but it is no where near 25-75%.

Rate Indexing: This is complicated but I will just say that there is no way that a single person can be singled out for rate increases. Every state that I know of uses some type of rate indexing that limits increases by not allowing the highest rate and lowest rate within a plan to be no more that 'x' percentage points apart. Additionally, indexing also considers the weighted mean of the rate range to make sure that the rate indexing is similar to a bell curve. I would bet that a lot of people within the issued policy that you uncle had insurance through got similar rate changes.

I could go on but I won't.

Oh - your uncle needed to join a professional or industry organization multiple employers trust (MET) that allows him to be considered part of a larger group and therefore pre-existing conditions would never have been an issue. His agent should have told him that. The membership fees are a few bucks a year.

So where was this when you started a thread about a story that was on Drudege the other day, douchebag?

It is pretty amazing...every single time with you. Good stuff.

I had never ever heard of CNS News and was curious about them. Read through the about section...ok interesting...looked at the company that owned them Media Research Center. Yea there it is...there is that classic Pete getting bullshit info from bullshit sources that tells him what he wants to hear.

The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene"

Dude, you don't have to be that way. I have no idea if the article is BS or not but the mere possibility and the fact that numbers like this seems to be all I ever hear make it hard to believe otherwise. If you have other links please post them for me rather than putting up a dick post like that.

Dude, you don't have to be that way. I have no idea if the article is BS or not but the mere possibility and the fact that numbers like this seems to be all I ever hear make it hard to believe otherwise. If you have other links please post them for me rather than putting up a dick post like that.

That clown is one of the most disingenuous posters here. Maybe it is due to being a big soft red head that got picked on his whole life...just a guess. It is the only conclusion I can come to knowing little about him less than his asinine posts and the picture of his goofy ass posted a while back. I will save you the typing...yes I just posted a as you call it "a dick post" and I did it because he warrants one~

__________________“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg~

I had never ever heard of CNS News and was curious about them. Read through the about section...ok interesting...looked at the company that owned them Media Research Center. Yea there it is...there is that classic Pete getting bullshit info from bullshit sources that tells him what he wants to hear.

The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to "prove  through sound scientific research  that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene"